Opinion
June 8, 2001.
(Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brunetti, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.)
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., PINE, WISNER, KEHOE AND BURNS, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress the statements he made to the police. The testimony at the suppression hearing supports the court's finding that the statements were voluntarily given. That testimony established that there was no causal connection between any injuries defendant received at the time of the arrest and the statement taken hours later ( see, People v. Gomez, 249 A.D.2d 237, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 852; see also, People v. Nieves, 205 A.D.2d 173, 184, affd 88 N.Y.2d 618), and that defendant was not "`intoxicated to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements'" ( People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 305, cert denied 389 U.S. 874; see, People v. Brooks, 174 A.D.2d 1050, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 962). Nor did the court err in refusing to suppress the statements on the ground that defendant was denied the right to counsel. We see no reason to disturb the court's finding that defendant did not unequivocally ask for an attorney ( see, e.g., People v. Hicks, 69 N.Y.2d 969, 970, rearg denied 70 N.Y.2d 796; People v. Davis, 193 A.D.2d 1142; People v. Dehmler, 188 A.D.2d 1056, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1013).